“International law” means sharia.
The Spectator Australia 28 July 2018
The news that, behind our backs, the team that signed us up to the greatest betrayal of this nation by its own government since federation – the Paris Agreement on climate change – has been secretly co-authoring a new treaty that will rob Australia of its sovereignty and border security is beyond belief. Yet that is what has been happening: the Global Compact for Migration is officially in the works.
Dutton is right to reject this United Nations claptrap
Chris Merritt The Australian August 1, 2018
The Global Compact for Migration contains an affirmation of respect for national sovereignty that would have to be the world’s finest example of dissembling claptrap. It means nothing.
Also bereft of meaning is the argument that this pact is benign because its provisions are not enforceable. They don’t need to be. They work by encouraging governments to pass laws that the UN considers to be correct.
Without change, Peter Dutton is right to reject this pact. Signing up would permit the UN to make Australia a whipping boy for deviating from the terms of the compact.
Signatories will be subjecting themselves to “inter-governmental measures that will assist us in fulfilling our objectives and commitments”.
And that includes re-educating journalists, “sensitising” them about migration-related terminology, manipulation by governments designed to “shape perceptions of migration”, the withdrawal of public funding from certain media outlets and investing in “ethical” reporting standards.
The big con is the guarantee that signatories will be free to enact their own migration policies. This promise, in paragraph 15 of the pact, is subject to the qualification that this freedom is to be exercised “in accordance with international law”.
For the OIC controlled UN, “international law” means sharia.
This form of words, which is peppered throughout the compact, might seem innocent, but it’s not. It invites some UN committee of experts to decide which Australian laws are in accord with international law.
Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should have nothing to do with this — unless they are happy to make the UN the arbiter of Australian law.
This is a key measure of sovereignty and it resides exclusively with those who vote in Australian elections — and that is where it should stay.
Great betrayal, Part II
The Spectator Australia 28 July 2018
The news that, behind our backs, the team that signed us up to the greatest betrayal of this nation by its own government since federation – the Paris Agreement on climate change – has been secretly co-authoring a new treaty that will rob Australia of its sovereignty and border security is beyond belief. Yet that is what has been happening: the Global Compact for Migration is officially in the works. It will hand ultimate control of our borders to UN mandarins. Tellingly, the US and Hungary (whose leaders have closely copied Tony Abbott’s border policies) refuse to sign.
Our current Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has said he will not sign the Compact ‘in its current form’, which probably means one of two things will happen: either Mr Dutton will be removed (as happened to Mr Abbott who stood in the way of the signing of the Paris Agreement) and replaced with a more compliant and ‘progressive’ Turnbullite minister; or a Labor government will eagerly sign us up to the Compact on the grounds that ‘we are simply implementing a Turnbull-era policy.’ Either way, Australia stands on the threshold of another great betrayal to mirror that of the Paris Accord. The great work done by Abbott, Morrison and Dutton in stopping the boats will be swept away as carelessly as were our cheap energy prices – all in the name of ‘we signed up to it, so we stick to it’.
Our border security is the envy of the world. Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop must immediately rule out ever signing any UN Compact on Immigration. If they are not prepared to do so, then the Liberal party has no choice other than to replace them with leaders who will.
In praise of Alan Tudge
Minister for Citizenship Alan Tudge is a talented toiler in the outer ministry, when so many of his seniors in Cabinet are schemers, passengers or designer-dressed show ponies. Mr Tudge is a throwback to the Howard glory years. He believes it’s a privilege to settle in Australia. As a former McKinsey consultant, he knows people want to migrate because of what Australia offers to the world, and that means ensuring that our brand and product integrity are enhanced, not compromised, by the quality of our immigration intake.
Speaking in London, Mr Tudge rightly identified our success as a migrant nation coming down to two things. First, careful selection of new immigrants. Second, successful integration of new arrivals. Together, these ensure social cohesion based around migrants accepting that while they bring their own heritage, culture and customs with them, they must integrate and assimilate into the community.
Mr Tudge, like John Howard and Tony Abbott, is unashamedly a promoter of the Australian – indeed Western – values which make our country a beacon for immigrants. He is unafraid to demand new arrivals learn and speak English. He does not hesitate to call out, as un-Australian, alien behaviours such as female genital mutilation and sharia law.
The minister compared Europe and liked not what he saw. ‘I look at a country like Denmark requiring all children as young as one year old from certain areas to be placed into mandatory day-care for instruction in Danish values, and am thankful Australia is not in that position’, he told his London audience. He contrasted Australia’s secure borders to a Europe that no longer controls who comes, and the circumstances in which they come.
Back home, Mr Tudge rightly called out the Victorian Labor government for its squeamish softness on South Sudanese gang violence and, unlike Victorian premier Daniel Andrews, didn’t hesitate to link an ethnic group to crime rates. The minister was not saying the entire South Sudanese community in Victoria is violent and lawless, but unlike his progressive critics he did not tiptoe around the issue by pretending there is no ethnic dimension to the gang violence plaguing parts of Melbourne.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. Mr Andrews has denied Sudanese gang violence is a social problem: Mr Tudge put him right. We are fortunate to have, for now, a citizenship minister who does not kowtow to identity politics and stands up for Australian values being applied in Australia, and not airbrushing the criminal actions of a small minority of a minority. But if this is the Coalition government’s twilight time, and Shorten (or Albanese) soon may be in charge, expect the luvvie Left to discredit and trample on the very defining Australian values that Mr Tudge celebrates and champions, and get used to, instead, identity politics prevailing over national social cohesion. That is something a confident, welcoming, outward-looking Australia cannot afford.